Saturday, December 1, 2012

(of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

When it comes to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's appearances on five separate talk shows to give the demonstrably false White House talking points, it's not hypothetical; it's fact. It's also factual to say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not do those interviews. Since we're talking about two factual events of the past, asking a question about why Rice did appear on those talk shows instead of Hillary is not about engaging in a hypothetical.

It's about wanting to know why one decision was made instead of an alternate decision.

Yet, when Hillary was asked why Rice and not her, she actually avoided the question by saying she wouldn't engage in a hypothetical.

Pay attention at the :37 mark for this gem that might just make her husband Bill blush.

"I'm not going to answer any hypothetical questions about what could have happened but didn't happen." - Hillary Clinton on why Susan Rice did the talk shows instead of her.

If she was referring to a point in the future, that's one thing but she's referring to what did and did not happen in the past as 'hypothetical'.

During the presidential campaign, Democratic Vice President Joe Biden infamously told an audience that the Republican nominee Mitt Romney wanted, "to put you all back in chains". On the day after the election, ABC News reported that Obama had the support of more than 96% of Black Americans.

The history of slavery in America is always there and will always be there. Unfortunately, it's a grossly distorted view of history that wins the day. That view is that the Republican Party is the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, racism, etc. etc. etc. The reality is just the opposite. All of those things - all of them - can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. Yet, despite all of this, blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat election after election.

As for slavery, Barack Obama's Middle East policy has facilitated the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who has been replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi. Now Egypt is voting on a draft of its constitution and, guess what? It looks like slavery is coming back.

An Islamist-dominated panel is voting on Egypt's draft constitution, the country's first charter after the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak. The draft largely reflects the conservative vision of the Islamists, with articles that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities and civil liberties in general.

Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.

As the GWP rightly points out, the Obama administration doesn't seem nearly prepared to go after Morsi the way it went after Romney when it comes to the issue of slavery, which neither Romney nor his Party had anything to do with.

This time, the Democratic Party, which allegedly fights to prevent slavery from coming back at the hands of the Republican Party (according to Joe Biden), will be complicit - once again - in ushering in an age of slavery. The difference, of course, is that this time it will be slavery in Egypt.